Artificial intelligence has advanced to the point where synthesized voices are no longer only a fantastical novelty, but practical tools carrying commercial value in entertainment, news, advertising and accessibility solutions. With only a few minutes of recorded audio, today’s AI systems can construct an uncannily accurate replica of a real person’s voice. These are innovations with immense potential such as to help people who cannot speak verbally still communicate, allow for multilingual dubbing and expanding creative possibilities for content creators.

Yet, behind this technological marvel looms a question for which societies and legal systems are in no way prepared: Who owns the voice of the future when AI can reproduce voices from the past?

India, in particular, is witnessing a surge in litigation as celebrities turn to the courts to protect their names, faces, voices, and even their catchphrases. These disputes sit at the intersection of technology, intellectual property, privacy, freedom of expression, and the economics of fame.

In 2024–25, India saw a landmark legal battle when Jaya Bachchan and Abhishek Bachchan approached the Delhi High Court over the unauthorised use of their names, photos, and AI-generated voice impersonations.

The case gained national attention because:

  • AI tools and human impersonators used their voices to endorse products and services.
  • Deepfake versions of Abhishek Bachchan appeared in fraudulent financial advertisements.
  • Jaya Bachchan’s distinctive voice and expressions were recreated for viral videos without consent.

The High Court recognised that a person’s voice is not just a sound, it is an intrinsic part of their identity. The ruling strengthened the growing consensus that voice cloning without consent violates dignity, privacy, and economic rights. It also provided public figures with a stronger legal foundation for fighting deepfake-related harms.

The recent wave of cases concerning the use of celebrities’ voices and images reveals three main concerns driving these petitions:

  • False endorsement: the fear that the public will assume the celebrity supports/endorses the product or message when it is clearly not the case.
  • Reputational harm, especially through AI-generated deepfakes, morphed images, or GIFs that may be embarrassing or offensive.
  • Privacy and livelihood, where unauthorised use invades personal privacy or affects a celebrity’s commercial earnings.

Ironically, many of these arguments arise from people whose livelihoods depend heavily on being publicly visible. Scholars refer to this as the “economics of superstars,” where those who are already famous use legal systems to strengthen their commercial dominance.

The tension between celebrity rights and freedom of expression is not new. Indian courts have repeatedly emphasised that news reporting, criticism, parody, satire, art, and political commentary must remain protected.

The Supreme Court’s decision in R. Rajagopal v. State of Tamil Nadu AIR 1995 SC 264, (1994) 6 SCC 632 established that personal, private information about an individual cannot be published without consent, unless it is part of public records.

Recent cases extend this idea to prevent the commercial exploitation of a person’s name, face, or voice without permission. Yet, much of a celebrity’s persona already exists in the public domain. Using publicly available clips or images in non-obscene, non-defamatory contexts, especially for satire or commentary should, in principle, fall within lawful expression.

Beneath the legal debates lies a profound ethical dilemma:

If a machine can replicate a human voice perfectly, does that voice belong to the algorithm or the person whose identity it echoes?

Code may be owned by technology firms, but the “vocal fingerprint” to which that code gives access is undeniably human. Consent, transparency and control must prevail. Without them, the misinformation, fraud, character assassination can outweigh the creative benefits of synthetic media.

As courts, lawmakers, creators, and technologists continue to grapple with these questions, in increasing clarity, that India has arrived at the moment when AI blurs the line between creation and imitation, inspiring and impersonating. These cases seem to warrant the enactment of laws which protect individuals from exploitation while protecting freedom of expression, creativity, and public discourse.

Courts may handle these issues in varied ways, but one thing should be clear: The law is not designed to overprotect fame, but to prevent misuse of fame.

Whether human or synthetic, the voice of the future should always remain based on consent, dignity and fairness because although technology allows us to reproduce a voice, the identity behind the voice always belongs to the lived experience.

Written by Khushboo Agarwal